This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by LesGovt

Two problems with what you have said. First, as I stated in my last posting, the "sky is falling" argument about running out of oil and gas is over 100 years old. In 1919, we would not make it another 20 years. Nearly 100 years after that statement, we have oil and gas and we have many untapped resources.

It is true that there have been alarmist statements in the past about running out that haven't turned out to be true. That doesn't mean we aren't going to run out. Our consumption is rapidly escalating. Especially the consumption of China, which is rapidly industrializing. At the same time, new discovery has been slowing. Much of the increased consumption in the last decade or so has been satisfied by increasing production from existing fields rather than finding new oil. There really are no analysts in the industry that don't agree that crude oil is going to be too expensive to be commercially viable for almost all applications in our life times. Some say 10 years, some say 20, some even say 40, but I don't know that anybody goes beyond 40 with their estimates. To get to 40 you need to make extremely optimistic assumptions about how much we're going to cut back on consumption and equally optimistic assumptions about the pace of discovery not continuing to fall.

Now, there are oil sands and shale oil. Currently they aren't really economically viable, but as the price of oil goes up they eventually will be. But, if we end up there- getting by on oil sands or shale oil- we clearly went down the wrong path because they cost more than green energy. The only reason we would be using them was because we failed to adopt to green energy by the time that we should have to be economically efficient and we still have a bunch of equipment that we can't switch over fast enough. Also, once we start getting into that stuff we're off the charts for global warming. Beyond even the worst case scenario projections.

Originally Posted by LesGovt

Second, the last time we had global warming, we did not use fossil fuels and yet it warmed. If we have global warming today, we could devastate our economy over a false pretense that cutting the usage of fossil fuels will solve the problem. History shows that global warming occurs without fossil fuels.

I think we already covered this, no? If the earth is going to be warming on its own in the near term, that is all the more reason we need to cut back on things we're doing that worsen that problem.

Originally Posted by LesGovt

I know which is best. Let the market work without the government distorting the market.

The do nothing plan just isn't optimal. We'll be unprepared to switch in time and we will do incredible damage to the planet in the process. The invisible hand is great for many things. It can figure out which product is the best, lower prices, etc. But some folks get so enamored by it's performance in those areas that they start to assume it is a magic solution to all problems. It isn't. It's a way to maximize economic production and whatnot in the short term. It is not a way to invest in the long term economic prospects of a country. It does not take the environment into account. It was never intended to be anything like that. The nation still requires leaders who aren't asleep at the wheel.

Originally Posted by LesGovt

We started decades ago. It is time for the alternative energy companies and its advocates to put on their big-girl panties or big-guy briefs and start producing a viable, efficient, and cost-effective product that the American public wants. It's time to stop the bellyaching and begging the taxpayers to foot their bills. We have time to make the transition. Just do it!

On one hand you're saying we need to transition now and on the other hand you're arguing that we shouldn't take any of the transitional steps. This is what the transition consists of. Things like carbon taxes, incentives to switch to green energy, research, etc. That is transitioning. You can't be both for and against that stuff at the same time.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by Karl

I was thinking of business loans, since that is the topic, but since I did not specify I'll give you that one.

Got any more?

Government direct loans I thought have a deferment built in, possibly the FHA program as well thought I'm less sure about the FHA. The Obama Mortgage Modification Relief program was a form of deferment though not at 100% but up to 31% by the lenders and it wasn't a government loan but is subsidized by the government.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by Karl

I was thinking of business loans, since that is the topic, but since I did not specify I'll give you that one.

Got any more?

This is far from the main discussion here, but no, I don't have any more at this moment. I checked the Statistical Abstract and it shows all kinds of business stats, but does not show how many had government guaranteed loans. I doubt they wish to advertise that defaulting is even an option.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by AdamT

The argument that we are running out of oil is quite valid. Why do you think oil has become so expensive? Speculation? That's part of it, but the bigger part is that there is insufficient supply to meet demand and it's pretty clear that demand is only going to outstrip supply at a faster rate going forward.

You don't know this. First, we do not know exactly what the supply of oil is. Second, we are not going after much of the domestic supply; therefore, your prediction concerning the supply is no more valid than the prediction in 1919 of having only 20 more years left of petroleum.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by LesGovt

You don't know this. First, we do not know exactly what the supply of oil is. Second, we are not going after much of the domestic supply; therefore, your prediction concerning the supply is no more valid than the prediction in 1919 of having only 20 more years left of petroleum.

We have a pretty good idea the domestic supply is grossly insufficient for our needs. We know that oil fields are drying up in places like Mexico and Yemen (among others). We know that demand is going to rise quickly as countries like China and India continue to develop. The biggest Gulf discover in the last dozen years would only meet our needs for 30 days. The pace of oil discoveries has been slowing for some time.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by AdamT

We have a pretty good idea the domestic supply is grossly insufficient for our needs. We know that oil fields are drying up in places like Mexico and Yemen (among others). We know that demand is going to rise quickly as countries like China and India continue to develop. The biggest Gulf discover in the last dozen years would only meet our needs for 30 days. The pace of oil discoveries has been slowing for some time.

If we produce our own oil and gas, what China needs will not be an issue. I believe that I have read that demand in the U.S. is actually down and not rising. Second, my reading has shown far different numbers for untapped resources than what you have stated. It appears that getting accurate numbers on the availability of future resources difficult to obtain.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by LesGovt

If we produce our own oil and gas, what China needs will not be an issue. I believe that I have read that demand in the U.S. is actually down and not rising. Second, my reading has shown far different numbers for untapped resources than what you have stated. It appears that getting accurate numbers on the availability of future resources difficult to obtain.

The numbers are pretty straightforward; accurate understanding is the difficulty. Blind ideology is the reason.

Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

Originally Posted by teamosil

It is true that there have been alarmist statements in the past about running out that haven't turned out to be true. That doesn't mean we aren't going to run out. Our consumption is rapidly escalating. Especially the consumption of China, which is rapidly industrializing. At the same time, new discovery has been slowing. Much of the increased consumption in the last decade or so has been satisfied by increasing production from existing fields rather than finding new oil. There really are no analysts in the industry that don't agree that crude oil is going to be too expensive to be commercially viable for almost all applications in our life times. Some say 10 years, some say 20, some even say 40, but I don't know that anybody goes beyond 40 with their estimates. To get to 40 you need to make extremely optimistic assumptions about how much we're going to cut back on consumption and equally optimistic assumptions about the pace of discovery not continuing to fall.

According to what I have read, domestic consumption is not "rapidly escalating," but rather has declined. Will we one day run out of petroleum? Probably. If alternative energies can replace petroleum, they should be fully developed and made to be effective and cost efficient prior to the time we run out of petroleum. If we use our resources and purchase from Canada, China will not impact our ability to have resources as we would produce our own.

Originally Posted by teamosil

Now, there are oil sands and shale oil. Currently they aren't really economically viable, but as the price of oil goes up they eventually will be. But, if we end up there- getting by on oil sands or shale oil- we clearly went down the wrong path because they cost more than green energy. The only reason we would be using them was because we failed to adopt to green energy by the time that we should have to be economically efficient and we still have a bunch of equipment that we can't switch over fast enough. Also, once we start getting into that stuff we're off the charts for global warming. Beyond even the worst case scenario projections.

I have read a bit on these and some other types that Canada uses which we also have. What may be costly today may not be as costly in the future as technological advances brings about less costs. The only reason costs would go up too high for gas and oil would be because the alternative energy cannot provide an effective and cost efficient product in the next few decades. Solar has already been around for decades. If it is a viable product, it is time to begin proving it.

Originally Posted by teamosil

I think we already covered this, no? If the earth is going to be warming on its own in the near term, that is all the more reason we need to cut back on things we're doing that worsen that problem.

We disagree on the cause and effect. If global warming is a natural result of nature, changing to alterative fuels by 2060 versus 2030 will not have significant impact. I am not sure that an alternative energy should take 80 or 90 years to develop into a viable product. If it takes that long, it probably is not viable in the first place.

Originally Posted by teamosil

The do nothing plan just isn't optimal. We'll be unprepared to switch in time and we will do incredible damage to the planet in the process. The invisible hand is great for many things. It can figure out which product is the best, lower prices, etc. But some folks get so enamored by it's performance in those areas that they start to assume it is a magic solution to all problems. It isn't. It's a way to maximize economic production and whatnot in the short term. It is not a way to invest in the long term economic prospects of a country. It does not take the environment into account. It was never intended to be anything like that. The nation still requires leaders who aren't asleep at the wheel.

No one has said do nothing.

Originally Posted by teamosil

On one hand you're saying we need to transition now and on the other hand you're arguing that we shouldn't take any of the transitional steps. This is what the transition consists of. Things like carbon taxes, incentives to switch to green energy, research, etc. That is transitioning. You can't be both for and against that stuff at the same time.

I did not say anything about transitional steps. I don't care what steps need to be taken. I am saying that the alternative energy industry needs to take any steps they need to take. The only thing I have said is that there should not be Federal guarantees on loans.